.^7 



=7 



THE OPPORTUNITY AND 

RESPONSIBILITY OF 

THE ENGINEER 



Industrial Relations 



THE Fortieth Anniversary of the organization of 
the A. S. M. E. was commemorated in the Audi- 
torium of the Engineering Societies Building, New 
York, on the evening of November 5, 1920, and was 
largely attended by members of all national Engineer- 
ing Societies and their friends. A full report of the 
proceedings and of all the addresses was published 
in the December issue of "Mechanical Engineering", 
the Journal of the A. S. M. E. 

The principal topic of discussion was the impor- 
tant subject of industrial relations, and several of the 
addresses were devoted directly to this subject. For 
the information and convenience of those interested 
in this subject these have been reprinted and are 
presented herewith. 



TOE AMERICAN SOaETY OF MECHANICAL 
ENGINEERS 
New York, N. Y. , 



^ 



"My greetings and good wishes to The American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers on the occasion of 
the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the 
organization. The Administration which comes into 
power next March fourth very much wishes the 
advice and cooperation of the membership." 

WARREN G. HARDING. 



"The greatest constructive work before the en- 
gineers of the United States is the creation of a 
sense of mutual responsibility between employer and 
employee, to apply the same skill to the develop- 
ment of the human side of our employment relations 
that we have devoted to the improvement of our 
machines and our processes. Our engineers stand 
midway between the employer and employee in inti- 
mate contact with both. It is the engineer's problem 
and I consider the very fact that your meeting is 
devoted to its consideration is a step into a field of 
engineering that is more fundamental to our material 
welfare than any other issue before our country." 

HERBERT HOOVER. 



THE OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE ENGINEER 

BY 

WILLIAM B. DICKSON 

WHEN your Committee invited me to take part in this discus- 
sion, I assume they knew that I was not an engineer. 

In a long business experience, however, I have been identified 
with some large enterprises demanding the highest degree of tech- 
nical skill. The usual procedure was for the non-professional mem- 
bers of the official staff to decide what was wanted in the shape of 
final product and then turn the problem of securing results over to 
the engineering staff. 

I propose to handle my part of this discussion along somewhat 
similar lines, by pointing out what I consider as some of the weak 
points in our social structure and some remedies, but leaving to 
you the part which your profession can play in meeting these 
problems. 

Most men will agree that our present social order is showing 
signs of instability. This is particularly true abroad, but we in 
America are not lacking in signs which point to a disturbed state 
of mind, especially on the part of working men. The authority of 
old standards and conventions is being questioned, sometimes in 
such manner as to take one's breath away. For instance, — in the 
proposed Plumb Bill for handling the railroads. 

The term ''Mechanical" in the title of your society would 
seem, on first thought, to be essentially materialistic — "of the earth, 
earthy," and therefore furthest removed from ethical problems. 
In the last two or three generations, however, mechanical develop- 
ments have played such a large part in shaping our social order, 
that they have become an important factor in ethical problems. 

The question has been raised by thoughtful men, whether or not 
the Applied Sciences, progress in which is peculiarly the boast of 
our age, have really advanced the human race in the path of evo- 
lution. I believe that they have, but, nevertheless, there are grave 
dangers attendant on modem conditions of work and living which 
must be recognized and counteracted if American ideals are to be 
preserved as energizing factors in our civilization. 



4 OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER 

About a year ago, in speaking to the Philadelphia branch of 
your Society, I dwelt oh what I consider the menace of the highly 
specialized task in our modern factories. I am going to mention 
it again because I have been seeking light on it ever since but 
without success. If I am wrong in my premises, I wish you would 
show me; and if I am right, I would like to know the answer to 
the problem. 

The danger to which I refer is the high degree of specialization 
in modem industry. The division of labor, which is such a marked 
characteristic of modern industry, has added a new complexity 
to the relation of employer and employee, and has brought with it 
new problems which vitally affect the community life. 

I tried to draw a parallel between the village blacksmith and 
shoemaker, whom I knew as a boy in a country village in Western 
Pennsylvania, and their modem successors who operate the auto- 
matic machines in our factories. 

My point was that the old conditions furnished what I feel 
to be an essential factor in a normal life, i.e., joy in work through 
the exercise of the creative instinct. 

It is difficu.lt for me to associate this feeling with the highly 
specialized task where the workman performs a simple operation 
over and over, perhaps for years. 

I feel that the opportunity for the expression of the creative 
instinct in our modern factory is very limited. I am also convinced 
that the natural, inevitable effect on the individual of the deadly 
monotony of highly specialized factory work is to stunt him men- 
tally, morally, and physically, unless it is counteracted by some 
other vital force. 

It is unthinkable that there should be any backward step in 
our industrial progress. No sane man would propose to solve this 
problem by reverting to the old conditions. Our shoes, clothing, 
and all other products essential to our present civilization will have 
to be made more and more by highly specialized automatic ma- 
chinery. 

But if I am justified in my premises, there is a human problem 
which must be faced; and in my opinion it is a problem in the 
solving of which lies the question of the survival of our democratic 
ideals. 

It has been said that free government is more important than 



WILLIAM B. DICKSON i 

good government. I believe this to be a profound truth, and apply- 
ing it to the form of government and admitting the manifest ad- 
vantages of a concentrated governing class in securing a highly 
efficient social order, I would say that if there must be a choice, 
it is better to be free and inefficient than to secure efficiency by 
having men become mere cogs in a complex social machine operated 
by a so-called superior class. 

Efficiency in all lines of human endeavor is greatly to be de- 
sired, yet I fear that we are at present in danger of making a 
fetish of efficiency to such an extent as to endanger human freedom. 

There is a deadly menace in a people clothed with political 
power, but stunted in body and soul by their environment. As I 
said, 1 have not been able to find a satisfaetor>% practicable answer 
to this problem, and I leave it with you. 

The principal theme, however, to which I wish to direct your 
attention is a broader one, and in the working out of the social 
problem which I will present, I am hopeful that an answer will be 
found also for the problem of the specialized task. 

My theme is this: What is the supreme issue confronting 
mankind to-day? In my opinion, simply the same issue which 
runs back through all history, and which we have fondly dreamed 
was settled once and forever by the American people, namely. 
Aristocracy vs. Democracy. 

We Americans are so accustomed to think of democracy as 
the normal system of human government, the very flower of civili- 
zation, that the man in our midst who would seriously question this 
apparently self-evident truth would be looked upon as abnormal, 
to say the least. 

We achieved, or we fondly hoped we had achieved, political 
democracy when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. As a mat- 
ter of fact, democracy is not an achievement ; it is an opportunity 
for further struggle upward. 

We must now set our minds to the task of applying democratic 
principles to industrial relations. 

I believe there is a grave menace to our American ideals in the 
highly centralized, autocratic control which is becoming a marked 
tendency in our great industries. ^ 

The feudal system was based on the ownership of land and its 
appurtenances, such as highways, mines, streams, fisheries, etc., by 



« OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER 

the barons, and it was effective in securing autocratic control of the 
workers, because the vast majority were tillers of the soil, or work- 
ers in other industries controlled through land ownership. 

The tendency of our modem industrial system is toward auto- 
cratic control of the workers through ownership of what our social- 
istic friends term ''the tools of production," which include not 
only the natural resources, but also the furnaces, mills, factories 
and transportation systems. 

Instead of indulging in glittering generalities, let me cite two 
instances of what has happened under the existing system of cor- 
porate control: 

Some years ago a gentleman at the head of one of our great 
corporations decided that prices must be maintained in the face 
of a diminishing demand. In order to accomplish his purpose, he 
restricted production by shutting down a number of large plants 
located in different communities, each of which had been built up 
largely as an adjunct of the plant. Some of these plants were kept 
closed for about a year, and the result was disaster to the com- 
munities. The merchants were driven out of business, real estate 
values were depreciated, and the workers were thrown on their own 
resources and had to break up their homes and seek employment 
elsewhere. None of these persons had any voice in the momentous 
decision which was made in a New York office, and which resulted 
in social paralysis in all of these communities. 

This last summer, the president of one of our largest textile 
companies suddenly announced that his mills would close for an 
indefinite period, and they were closed in the same arbitrary, auto- 
cratic manner as above described. 

History is filled with instances where centralized power has 
led to conditions inimical to human progress, as that term is usually 
understood in America. It is the effect of the unconscious insolence 
of conscious power. 

Consider, for a moment, the despotic power which our modern 
system of industry gives a few men over the lives and fortunes of 
hundreds of thousands of their fellow-citizens. By reason of this 
condition, we have the unstable situation of a government founded 
on the suffrages of men who, for all practical purposes, are indus- 
trially bond men. 

If we should read in the paper some morning that a Turkish 



WILLIAM B. DICKSON 7 

Pasha had exercised his authority in such a way as to deprive a 
city of its means of subsistence, we would raise our eyes in holy 
horror and bless our good fortune in living in a more enlightened 
land. Any manifestation of autocracy is repugnant to the American 
people, whether it proceeds from a president of a corporation, a 
president of a labor union, or a president of the United States. 

What is the answer? Only one, namely, industrial democracy. 

In a great national crisis, Lincoln said : ' ' A house divided 
against itself cannot stand. This nation cannot continue to exist 
half slave and half free." 

I believe that we are approaching a time when we will need an 
industrial Lincoln, who will give utterance to the creed of the 
20th century: *'A house divided against itself cannot stand; this 
nation cannot continue to exist politically democratic but economic- 
ally autocratic." 

What do I mean by industrial democracy? It is exceedingly 
important that there be no confusion as to this definition. Mr. 
Carnegie was once asked, "Which is the most important factor in 
your business, capital, management, or labor?" 

He replied, ''Which is the most important leg on a three- 
legged stool?" This answer epitomizes my theme, and also what 
I believe will be the creed of the 20th century. 

In an efficient partnership, such as Mr. Carnegie's answer 
implied, while each partner may have equal rights, the duties and 
responsibilities are usually separated so that each exercises his 
principal functions ^nthin his own limited sphere. But where 
grave questions are to be considered, which vitally affect the or- 
ganization as a whole, there is general consultation. So, in the 
new ideal of industrialism, each factor, i.e., capital, management, 
and labor, will continue to have its own separate natural function, 
as heretofore, but no arbitrary, autocratic decisions affecting the 
general welfare will be made, either by the directors, the officials, 
or by the workmen. 

Some of you may ask, ''Did Mr. Carnegie follow this ideal in 
practice?" My answer is, "No." He did give a larger measure 
of recognition to management than most of his fellow-manufac- 
turers, but in his attitude toward labor, he was merely a signpost, 
pointing the right way but never taking it. 

The Carnegie labor policy was highly autocratic, as is that of 



S OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINBBR 

its successor, the U. S. Steel Corporation; a benevolent autocracy, 
if you please, in many splendid ways, although it still maintains 
that relic of barbarism, the twelve-hour day. But however large 
you wTite the word *' benevolent, ' ' you must always write after it 
the word "autocracy." 

The Steel Corporation has become such an important factor 
in our national life that it is a fair object for criticism. The cor- 
poration deservedly stands high in the estimation of the American 
people, because of the material advantages enjoyed by its em- 
ployees, but its managers have as yet failed to appreciate the spirit 
of the times. To paraphrase St. Paul, ''Though they pay the 
highest wages, give pensions, and furnish every modem conveni- 
ence and safeguard to their workmen, and have not democracy, it 
profiteth them nothing." 

The autocratic policy of this great industrial corporation is 
diametrically opposed to American ideals, and if it and similar 
organizations in other industries continue to grow and to maintain 
this autocratic attitude, there can be only one result, industrial 
feudalism; feudalism with a high degree of comfort and safety 
for the worker, I grant you, but none the less, feudalism. 

I am anxious to observe every courtesy to my fellow speaker 
of the evening and yet, lest my position should be misunderstood, 
I desire to make it clear that in the recent steel strike the course 
taken by the steel corporation had my hearty approval. 

One of the most melancholy tasks of the student of history is 
to observe the insidious ways in which free institutions have been 
destroyed under the guise of apparently innocent innovations. 
Rome, after a glorious history as a republic, extending over nearly 
five centuries, became an empire under the Caesars, and as far as 
outward forms were concerned, the transition was so gradual that 
the citizens did not realize that any real change had occurred. This 
was so apparent that Julius Caesar, himself, did not dare to accept 
the title of king. So, to-day, I am not imputing blame to any man 
or class. No man has deliberately said, even to himself, '*I will 
deprive my fellow-citizens of a large measure of liberty in order 
to enrich myself," nevertheless, the things which lead to this con- 
dition have been done, and are being done to-day as we look on. 

As a famous American has said: ''The essential character- 
istic of empire in the objectionable sense, is absolutism. Whether 



WILLIAM B. DICKSON 9 

or not absolute power be administered benevolently, makes no dif- 
ference. The evil is in the power itself ; not in the nature or man- 
ner of its administration. 

'* Benevolent absolutism is, indeed, the most fruitful seed of 
tyranny. Let absolutism begin malignantly, and a people accus- 
tomed to freedom, recognize it for what it is, and rising up in their 
might, put it down ; but let it begin benevolently, and by the time 
the people see and feel tyranny, which is as natural to every species 
of absolutism as poison to a poison vine, they are powerless to 
resist its aggressions. ' ' 

When a man, or a number of men, for their own ends, create 
a great industrial unit, they assume an obligation toward the hu- 
man elements in that unit, and through them, to society in general, 
which cannot be cancelled or suspended arbitrarily. I subscribe 
to the doctrine that human labor is not a commodity in the ordinary 
sense of that term. 

In a completely natural society, every man by reason of close 
and continuous contact with land and other natural resources would 
be an independent, self-sustaining unit. When a man has left this 
natural condition, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and has be- 
come the servant of another man, or other men, he has given up a 
natural right and his employer has assumed an equivalent obliga- 
tion. The fact that neither the employer nor the employee has 
been conscious of this exchange, and that both may have acted 
from purely selfish motives, does not alter the elemental fact, 
which, in the great national aggregate, constitutes the great un- 
answered problem of modern times — the elemental fact that is at 
the base of all social unrest. 

In the two instances which I cited, where communities were 
paralyzed by the arbitrary closing of plants, the American way to 
handle such a situation would be to have a conference of the rep- 
resentatives of the three factors, i.e., capital, management, and 
labor, which, after considering all of the facts, would determine 
whether to shut-down, operate part-time, reduce wages and salaries, 
or adopt an other course which would give the fullest recognition 
to the human factors involved. 

I believe that the greatest task to which American employei-s 
must address themselves is the devising of practical ways in which 
labor can be given the full recognition to which, as an equal part- 



10 OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER 

ner, it is entitled. I make this statement with absolute confidence 
in the fairmindedness of the American workingman when he is 
fully informed and is entirely free to act. If I did not have this 
confidence, I would despair of the future of our free institutions. 

In an address delivered by me in 1915, I said: ''The indi- 
vidual workman, dependent on his own strength and resources, can- 
not hope to bargain on equal terms with the corporation. If he 
cannot do so, he is no longer a free man, but a serf; and the serf 
has no place in the future of America. ' ' 

I believe, therefore, that one of the first steps necessary to in- 
spire the workmen with confidence is the sincerity of the employers ' 
recognition of the proper status of labor, in the adoption of a fair 
system of collective bargaining. 

I also believe that in the near future the workmen must be- 
come partners through some system of profit-sharing. No scheme 
could be adopted which would be applicable to all business, as 
each particular company would have to adapt the general idea to 
its own peculiar conditions. 

I ^vill not enlarge on this idea, which is too important to dis- 
miss lightly, except to say that in any such partnership, while 
the economic needs of the human factors must always be recog- 
nized in preference to property rights, the workmen must have a 
real stake in the enterprise, probably through the investment of 
their savings in the stock. 

But some of you may say, ''We don't want to have anything 
to do with your so-called industrial democracy ; we are satisfied with 
the present system and prefer to continue as we are. ' ' My answer 
to this is that human relations are not static, but dynamic, and 
unless I am entirely mistaken as to the direction and force of the 
tide which is now running so strongly in human affairs, your choice 
will not lie between the present system of industrial control and 
industrial democracy. 

American industry has come to the parting of the ways; on 
the right, is the road that leads direct to industrial democracy. 
This road has some heavy grades, and a higher degree of skill will 
be required to drive on it, but it will bring us out into Peace Valley. 

On the left, is a road also deviating from the old road by 
which we have come, but it is cunningly camouflaged so as to 
seem to be the natural continuation of the main highway. It leads 



WILLIAM B. DICKSON 11 

directly to industrial feudalism; to that social condition predicted 
by Hilaire Belloc in his book, "The Servile State," in which the 
workers voluntarily sacrifice freedom in return for comfortable 
maintenance and safety. From this second road, there is also a 
by-path which is now being trodden by Russia, and toward which 
not only our British brethren, but a considerable number of 
American workmen are being tempted to stray. In other words, the 
choice lies between democracy on one hand, and serfdom or chaos 
on the other. 

Let me again quote Andrew Carnegie, who said in his Prob- 
lems of To-day: "Revolutionary socialism is successfully to be 
combatted only by promptly conceding the just claims of moderate 
men." 

To sum up, what can be done to counteract the tendencies 
which I have described? These things seem to me to be entirely 
practicable : 

1 Place our industries on a more democratic basis, giv- 
ing recognition to management and labor, as equal partners 
with capital ; 

2 Teach democracy in our schools and colleges as thor- 
oughly as we teach arithmetic, so that it will permeate every 
phase of human life, politically and industrially. 

It is a constant source of wonder to me to find so many persons in 
all walks of life who have no real conception of the vital principles 
of democracy. 

Life, in its truest and most virile sense, consists largely in 
making choices, and, like the traveler before the Sphinx, we must 
answer correctly or be destroyed. I am not looking forward to the 
new era of industrial democracy as a period of peace and serenity, 
but rather as a time in which the way has been cleared for a further 
toilsome climb up the spiral of evolution. I am hopeful that our 
generation will guess the Sphinx riddle, and that "Out of this 
nettle, danger, will pluck the flower, safety." 



THE OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE ENGINEER 

BY 

SAMUEL GOMPERS 
President of the American Federation of Labor 

THE name engineer makes a very strong appeal to one who 
appreciates the mechanism underlying the fabric of our 
civilization. Engineers are scouts of civilization. We send them 
ahead into the lone places — the wilderness, the jungles, the great 
watery expanses, to build the highways necessary for civilized man. 
The engineers must deal with Nature, with that mysterious dynamic 
thing we call ' * force, ' ' with materials. It is their function to direct 
the human activity necessary to coordinate these forces and ma- 
terials in order to make them serve the needs and aspirations of 
men. 

Because of my high conception of the engineering profession 
I was glad to accept your invitation to address The American So- 
ciety of Mechanical Engineers to voice my understanding of the 
possibilities of your work as engineers of industry, and to suggest 
what seems to me the responsibility of the engineer to the whole 
modem industrial system. 

One of the difficulties that arises nowadays about our discus- 
sion of responsibility is that we fail to realize that professional 
men, whether doctors, lawyers or engineers, should all be in a very 
real sense, agents of society and not merely masters in their own 
particular professions. 

We are beginning to realize that just as no ration is isolated 
from the family of nations, so it is actually true that individually 
we cannot be isolated from our professions. Every man in his 
actions, influences in a greater or less degree, other groups or in- 
dividuals, either for good or evil. 

During the past few months engineers have expressed their 
sense of responsibility in a splendidly stimulating way. In order 
to accomplish better their purpose of service to others and to con- 
tribute to public welfare the best that was in them, all the engineer- 
ing and technical societies of the United States banded themselves 
together in a great over-arching organization designated as The 

12 



Federated American Engineering Societies — a comprehensive or- 
ganization dedicated to the service of the communit}^ state and 
nation. This close union makes possible coordination of effort and 
more efficient progress in achievement of great ideals. 

But declarations are not deeds. Fortunately evidences are not 
lacking that engineers are seriously seeking to realize the ideals 
they have formulated. 

During the past year representatives of engineering organiza- 
tions as well as individual engineers have come to me seeking help 
in getting a better understanding of the human element essential 
to production and in establishing the proper basis for cooperation 
with the constructive force which they had come to realize exists in 
the organizations of human beings engaged in industrial produc- 
tion. For the engineer knows that organization is necessary in 
order to utilize power — human or material. 

It is a tremendously encouraging fact that the engineers 
throughout the country are coming to appreciate their high calling. 
It is unnecessary for me to review the mechanical achievements 
of the engineer, for they speak for themselves, but I do want to 
point out that the concept which has grown up in industry, which 
many accept, is fundamentally in error. We talk about the pro- 
duction of our factories as being the material, the finished product, 
in other words, which is sent out in freight cars, and of the indi- 
vidual workmen as by-products. Men, not things, are the true 
goal of civilization. That civilization fails that does not produce 
great men and great women, able to create and to use with dis- 
cernment the material things that serve the spirit. Who can esti- 
mate the worth of human beings? I submit that the true ethical 
point of view of production is that the man himself is the main 
product and the materials the by-product, and it is in this clearer 
point of view, it seems to me, that the way lies open for joining the 
forces which the labor movement represents and the forces repre- 
sented by the activities of your o^vn societies. 

The problem involved is not a simple one, for the tendency 
during the last seventy-five or one hundred years of our western 
civilization has been to have the machine replace the man. The old 
feeling of craftsmanship which existed before the industrial revo- 
lution came about, has been greatly modified because of the per- 
fection reached in machine design. This process, however, has been 



14 OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER 

carried entirely too far, for in many places the man has become 
a human connecting link in a machine and mastered by it instead 
of controlling the machine himself, as he did with the tools that 
he used in the old days. The result is that today men 's work tends 
to become mere toil, so it seems to me that the task that lies before 
us is to develop a definite kind of working environment which will 
be attractive and which will inspire rather than repulse the work- 
men. The work itself must become of central concern. This can- 
ndt be brought about unless the man finds the opportunity for 
self-expression in the day's work and a chance to exercise his cre- 
ative impulses. 

During the past fifty years the labor movement has endeavored 
to protect the workman against the inroads of the machine upon 
his own life. Our fundamental effort toward this may be epitom- 
ized in this declaration. The labor of a human being is not a com- 
modity nor article of commerce. We knew that human labor is in- 
separable from thinking, living beings, but it took the organized 
power of our labor organizations to secure recognition of this prin- 
ciple in law and in practice. Workmen's compensation laws and 
other legislation of a similar nature are a recognition of this fun- 
damental. 

I see, however, before the labor movement a great future, as I 
also see a great future before the engineering profession. If the 
engineer should join hands with the workman — both devoting 
their energies to one cause, namely, the development of a kind of 
industry and a kind of work in which the man will not only learn 
the processes of production — each day Avill have increasing oppor- 
tunities to develop those human functions which are essentially 
intelligent. 

A way has been opened for such cooperation in the declara- 
tions of the conventions of the American Federation of Labor, ex- 
pressing appreciation of the value of the technicians of industry 
and the desirability of the labor movement's availing itself of 
scientific aid in all possible ways. 

In America our education has been both popular and free. We 
have had compulsory education for all because we wanted to be 
sure that all would be prepared for the duties of citizenship. Edu- 
cation, however, is nothing more than the acquiring of greater 
knowledge of natural law and an opportunity to use this knowledge 
in the performance of useful work. Is it not logical, therefore, to 



SAMUEL GOMPERS 3 5 

look forward to the day when our industries will be conducted 
along educational lines? 

It is the deadly monotony of repetitive work that is at the root 
of most of our troubles, and I, therefore, in the name of the work- 
ers, urge you engineers to direct your energies to the solution of 
this problem. Beware that the machines you create do not become 
a Frankenstein and enslave the human race. 

If you study the laws of humanity with the same degree of 
intensity that you study the law^s of material science, you will render 
a tremendous service, and as President of the American Federation 
of Labor it is my firm conviction that the labor movement not only 
welcomes but invites your cooperation. 



THE OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE ENGINEER 

BY 

A. W. BERRESFORD 
President of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers 

THE traditional difference between the ''professional man" and 
those of other occupations is that the adequacy of the ex- 
pected compensation is not a measure of the effort he will exert 
in a given work. Having accepted an undertaking, the prime con- 
sideration becomes that of accomplishment, and to that end he 
gives the best of himself, freely and uninfluenced by consideration 
of personal gain. 

Before the day of the engineer, the professional man — doctor, 
lawyer. clerg>^man, soldier — exemplified this quality in his daily 
life, or in the emergency as it arose, and the knowledge that he so 
held himself for service set him in a class apart from those who 
earned their bread in other ways, and gained him recognition from 
those who, rightly or wrongly, were esteemed in those days as of 
higher degree. From the time of his appearance, the engineer has 
maintained this tradition, and to his capacity for service, his pride 
in true accomplishment, his forgetfulness of self and self-interest, 
civilization, as we know it, owes much. 

Trained as he is to the weighing of facts and to the realiza- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



028 106 728 P 

16 OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENGINEER 

tion that his work will be good only to the extent that it is founded 
on ultimate truth, his mental attitude is always one ol: analysis 
to determine what are the actual conditions and to group them in 
such relation and proportion that the final assembly shall contain 
the maximum of what is desirable. 

If our entire people had been so trained in the past as to be 
competent thus to consider the conditions which confronted them, 
and if they had the disposition so to exert themselves, no one will 
doubt that the problems of the last few years which were so diffi- 
cult of solution would have been handled with a certainty and effi- 
ciency woefully absent in the fact. Such training in the mass is 
obviously impossible at present, but if a sufficient number are so 
trained and so disposed and if they are so joined in consideration, 
speech and action as to give weight to their concerted expression, 
they may well influence the ultimate decision to an important degree. 

The engineer exists in sufficient number to constitute an im- 
portant, and, by reason of his qualifications, an influential part of 
our people. If he will so associate as to convince the remainder that 
his expression or action is the actual consensus of his opinion after 
unprejudiced deliberation, then this expression must and will be 
given due weight, if for no other reasons than his peculiar quali- 
fication and the absence of any possibility of its having been dic- 
tated by personal interest. 

In the past, the difficulty has been to secure such an opinion. 
We have dreamed of a super-society combining all divisions of en- 
gineering, and, by its very breadth, furnishing accommodation and 
facilities for each, and permitting the concentration of all available 
ability, knowledge and experience on questions of common interest. 
But the practical difficulties have been too obvious. The Federated 
American Engineering Societies — an organization of associations, not 
of individuals — offers for the first time an adequate solution and 
makes possible concerted expression and service in the public interest. 

That this public service and expression are a duty is imme- 
diately evident if we propose to maintain only the traditions of our 
profession. That it is a responsibility arises from the mere pos- 
session of the ability and the fact that in a self-constitut<.^d, self- 
governing division of society, such as is ours, it is incumbent on each 
individual enjoying its privileges to assume for the common good 
the part for whifth ho is partimlarly fitted. 



1^0 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

028 106 728 A 



